S. KANNAN Vs. A. ANTONY SAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.288 of 2003 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Tiruchirappalli. The respondent/complainant filed the said complaint seeking his prosecution for the commission of the offence under Sec. 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. After full-fledged trial, the Trial Court found the revision petitioner/accused, the guilty of the offence under Sec. 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and imposed a sentence of one year simple imprisonment and compensation of Rs. 7,50,000.00 under Sec. 357(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure with the default sentence of two months simple imprisonment, vide order dated 14.11.2005. The revision petitioner/accused, aggrieved by the conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court, preferred an appeal in Crl. A.No. 181 of 2005, on the file of the Court of First Additional District and Sessions Judge (PCR), Tiruchirappalli and the lower appellate Court, vide impugned judgment dated 21.08.2012, has confirmed the conviction and sentence awarded by the Trial Court and hence, this revision.

(2.) Mr.A.Thiruvadikumar, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the impugned judgments passed by the Courts below and would contend that the revision petitioner has borrowed only a sum of Rs. 4,00,000.00 and during the pendency of the proceedings, he has already paid a sum of Rs. 2,50,000.00 and the balance amount by way of compensation payable is only Rs. 5,00,000.00 and if any concession is shown by the respondent, he is ready and willing to make good, the payment also.

(3.) On the merits of the case, it is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner that the complainant has failed to prove the source for lending of such a huge amount as loan to the revision petitioner/accused. He would further contend that the Courts below had erroneously recorded the finding that the debt is a legally enforceable one and that the complainant has miserably failed to sustain his case and hence, prays for interference.